Polar Bear Ruling: Nobody's Happy

bubba.....I looked it up, Kilimanjaro: Volcano Above the Clouds appeared on PBS's NOVA science show in 2003 rebroadcast in 2007. An expedition to the summit discovered rising ground temperatures, they believe, due to magma within 400ft. of the surface. They also discussed the problems deforestation in the area has caused with precipitation patterns and how that effects glaciation on the mountain.

I don't doubt the fact of global warming, I have questions about why it's happening, how quickly it's occurring, and how much effect we can have on arresting it though.

The question remains, what is the best thing we can do to slow it, if it poses a threat. I believe that switching our primary power sources from fossil fuels to electric generation is probably the right way to go. Nuclear, clean-coal (with carbon-capture), improved wind and solar, and natural gas are the most likely future modes of generation. We should be moving in that direction now!

I vaguely know some of the arguments around kilimanjaro, the problem is that they are red herrings so I don't see the point of dealing with it. It's a talking point of Michael Crighton who is responding to a single slide of the Gore movie. It just doesnt address the larger reality.

Just a few hundred miles west you have the Ruwenzoris, which are nestled in a jungle and not having problems with deforestation, and glaciers retreating elsewhere that are not even volcanic.

The pattern is pretty clear, as you seem not to doubt.

I can't weigh into the specifics of the cause, as I can with evolution, because I would need to examine both sides in detail. In general though I trust the consensus view of science organizations all over the world, that it is happening and that there is some evidence we are influencing it.

My impression is that some populizers of the idea of man made warming have rounded a few corners. It's also my impression that many internet doubters haven't done their homework and are criticizing things they don't even begin to understand. There are too many shared tactics with the creationists, which sets my alarm bells ringing.

Maybe one day I'll take the time...

As for solutions, those sound good, I really don't know enough about it. I would add a national priority of conservation. As with money, not spending it is the same as making it.

I know that of the candidates, Obama and McCain favor looking at nuclear power. Hillary is agnostic, Edwards opposed.

Bubba.....I am definitely NOT a creationist, if that's what you're thinking? I firmly believe in the scientific method - 100%!

I am however an agnostic as to the causes (plural), extent, and ultimate impact of global warming. I don't like to jump because some alarmists tell us too, that's essentially what happened with nuclear power after three mile island and the movie "The China Syndrome." You can see how much good that's one did us.

All the other alternative technologies people are talking about, electric cars, hydrogen, fuel cells require electricity to produce. If you just fire up a bunch of current generation coal plants you don't solve anything as they emit more greenhouse gases to produce the required power. Hence nuclear - no greenhouse gases, no foreign oil, a win - win solution!

To be fair I don't know how easy it is to dismiss so many scientific organizations as "alarmist". I mean, NOAA, NASA, National Acadamy of Science, IPCC, Science orgs from all over the world, even oil companies like BP all agree that there is evidence that made-made C02 is the cause of global warming. Where consensus diverges is usually the long term consquequences.

Now, that's just an appeal to authority but it works for me on 100% of the other subjects that I dont know much about as well. We all do it, every day.

I'm not saying you are a creationist, Im just pointing out that I often see sloppy logic, cherry picking and outright disinformation from global warming skeptics online. That just happens to remind me of the tactics of creationists. A certain strain of paranoia as well. Not only are the majority of scientists wrong but there is often an implication that they have a hidden agenda for lying to everyone. Again, similar to creationist charges.

Its a politicized subject so people who wouldnt ordinarily wade into a scientific topic seem more inclined to grab their water-wings and start paddling. I'm talking in general terms here, not about you specifically.

bubba....Interestingly, a NASA team led by Son Nghiem, recently (October 2007) released observations that indicate the reduction in Arctic Sea Ice extent over the previous eight years is due to changing wind patterns forcing the ice into currents where it escapes the polar basin - is driven into the open sea and melts and is not due to global warming.

Additionally, in the January 2008 issue of Nature Magazine another study cast doubt on the theory that global warming is the primary cause of Arctic sea ice melting. Researchers found that the predictions of greenhouse gas models of global warming and sea ice melting were at exact opposite extremes with observation of vertical temperature profiles! Another words, commonly accepted global warming models predicted increasingly warmer air near the surface, what was found was increasingly warmer air in the upper atmosphere?

Such divergences should lead people to take another look at what's actually happening and not cling to politically correct orthodoxy.

And this means what? Measured increasing temperatures in the arctic might be changing the wind patterns and accelerating sea ice loss.

The same researcher, Son Nghlem, found large areas of inland antarctica melted recently as well. Quite a breeze.

How does that explain glaciel melting all over the world? Or measured increases in temperature? What you are arguing exactly?

The head of NASA, a bush political appointee has said that warming is established and that they have "pretty much nailed down" humans as the cause. He's no liberal and got himself in some hot water suggesting that the warming might be good for us. Buah himself called climate change a threat and he did that after being advised by the NAS. He didnt just make it up or read it on the internet.

The consensus of scientists and scientific organizations is that warming is real. OTOH, you keep making arguments that suggest there is no warming while saying that you agree that warming is happening. I dont quite understand your position.

bubba....you totally missed the point! I've said repeatedly I believe there is global warming, what do you want me to swear an oath?

My point was that some of the examples that the ALARMISTS use to scare people into also believing that it exists.....aren't caused by Global Warming! Mt. Kilimanjaro's snow cap, Arctic Ice shrinkage can all be demonstrated to be caused by factors unrelated, at least by the science we understand now, to GLOBAL WARMING!

Talk about disinformation, this is it. ALARMISTS such as Al Gore should stop trying to use these examples to create fear in peoples minds to prove their points. BTW, as long as Gore and his producer pal Laurie David fly around on private jets, drive SUV's, spend 20x the national average on their mansions utility bills, and Ted Kennedy doesn’t want a wind farm within sight of his family’s Hyannis compound, etc. people aren't going to buy their hype, it's utterly hypicritical.

Carl Sagan once noted "Extraordinary claims require, extraordinary evidence."
This issue REQUIRES further research, before taking drastic steps which might harm our economy and standard of living for generations to come, needlessly. Is that clear enough? Nobody knows the extent, rate of change, or harm that might be caused by the fact of global warming. I've heard food-shortages might be one of the possible negative consequences of warming. Guess what, the run-up of energy prices has already accomplished that way ahead of any global warming factors, hasn't it?

If polar bears are endangered by shrinking polar sea ice and the reason the sea ice is shrinking is due to changing wind patterns that we have nothing to do with, why should we change our policies?

>>>My point was that some of the examples that the ALARMISTS use to scare people into also believing that it exists.....aren't caused by Global Warming!>>>

That there is an alternate hypothesis to kilimanjaro melting means what? That wasnt the only example of glaciel retreat provided by Gore or anyone else in the debate. There are thousands of examples of it as youve admitted. What exactly does the alternate hypothesis establish for you to tout it so often? I still don't get it.

You are also overstating the case of the alternate kilimanjaro hypothesis for rhetorical purposes. It doesnt "prove" one thing or another, its just another possible model for a very specific location. It may well be right for that particular system but why hold it up as absolute truth (when you certainly arent qualified to assess 19th century water levels in Lake Victoria yourself) and then dismiss out of hand the consensus of opinion and papers that show man made C02 as contributing to warming? What's your metric for deciding which models are correct in a technical subject for which you are not trained? Your gut? Either way, kilimanjaro is a very specific system.

And what does someone's chosen transportation method have to do with the facts? Climate scientists could levitate on scooters that shoot out bricks of burning coal and it doesnt affect the argument. Are you planning on bringing John Kerry, Rosie and Alec Baldwin into the argument? I think you can barely conceal your vitriol for left wing figures.

An article at the NSIDC backed up many of the science claims in the Gore movie. You quoted them as some kind of authority on the subject so maybe that will impress you. Unless, they are suddenly no longer credible.

Certainly more study is always needed and criticism is how science works. There also may be some legitimate critiques of global warming from a few quarters. But, there is still a current consensus and it doesnt appear to agree with you.

bubba....I don't like hypocrites to begin with and that's what Gore et al. are, they talk the talk, but not the walk. Any one who calls for others sacrifice while declining to do so themselves aren't credible.

I've given you a number of examples of contrary phenomena that differ with man-made global warming conventional wisdom, as you point out, skepticism is key to science. Theories are always being questioned in almost every scientific field. What killed the dinosaurs, the origin and fate of the universe, the origins of life on earth, etc. To say, as you and others do, that we've arrived at the final consensus as to what causes and what will be the ultimate course of global warming isn't in keeping with that.

One of the qualities of a classic scientific theory is that it must make testable, verifiable predictions, what prediction has the MAN-MADE global warming theory posed that has been tested and verified? In fact, the in the case of the January ‘08 Nature article, the global warming model used to predict vertical temperature profiles was exactly....wrong! What should someone make of that, even a layman, what confidence should we have in other predictions made by this model?

You seem totally unwilling to think critically, remember all the things the human race thought they knew without a doubt? The world is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, the heavens are static and unchanging. Don't be so quick to arrive at a conclusion based on others estimations, even notable others, try to read and reason for yourself a bit more.

Enough of my POV. What about you? You want to save the polar bears, correct? What's your solution, what price should we in the US (I assume you're a US citizen) be willing to pay for the well being of the largest land carnivores on the planet?

Also, you have two cases. One for arctic sea ice and one for ice loss on kilimanjaro. Neither rules out a contributing role for global warming. I think it would be quite odd to find that an exposed mountain like kilimanjaro was immune to world-wide glacial retreat and only happened to melt due to its own specific problems. The same for the arctic, which we know is warming. Winds may just be enhancing the ice loss, not replacing warming as a cause.

>>>You seem totally unwilling to think critically, remember all the things the human race thought they knew without a doubt? The world is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, the heavens are static and unchanging.>>>

Some of those are still believed by christian geocentrics today. But the greeks knew the world wasnt flat as did educated people at the time of columbus. Still, that uneducated or prescientific people believed odd things doesnt seem much help to you unless you are calling climate scientists ignorant and uneducated. Certainly Ive heard global warming skeptics express distaste for scientists before.

>>>To say, as you and others do, that we've arrived at the final consensus as to what causes and what will be the ultimate course of global warming isn't in keeping with that>>>>

Sorry, I never said final consensus, I said consensus. In fact I believe I said "current consensus" at one point. I find it interesting that even recognizing a current consensus appears to be painful to you and something you are unwililng to address.

>>>>>One of the qualities of a classic scientific theory is that it must make testable, verifiable predictions, what prediction has the MAN-MADE global warming theory posed that has been tested and verified?>>>>

Eh, continued warming and more ice loss. How about that one? For decades now. If you mean predictions regarding AGW (man caused warming) and carbon stuff, I have no idea, its not my issue.

As for my opinion, I dont have much of one beyond general concern. It's not my issue and I'm not one to cut and paste and pretend I know more than ive read. But without knowing much about a subject, I can still spot spotty logic and prejudicial reasoning. In general I tend to agree with scientific consensus on subjects I dont follow closely though I couldnt swear any oaths. I also know that much of the criticism of global warming that ive read online has been from people who, well, lets just say havent represented their views well. Nothing a climate scientist should worry about anyway.

I have to say I still don't really understand your position. But that's fine.

I answered your questions it seems you don't provide that courtesy to others.

As for the polar bear, the consensus is that we are impacting global warming. If you disagree with the consensus of climate scientists I just expected you to have an actual argument.

I suspect that you find the idea offensive politically and so you don't care what scientists have to say about anything on this matter. Do you generally doubt scientists when it comes to areas that you don't know much about?

They said the earth was flat, so I might be right is not a persuasive argument. It's sort of a Hail Mary to nowhere.

But it is often used by creationists so its a good note to end on.

No offense though, many of my pointed comments were not directly aimed at you. I was thinking of many other internet personas Ive had this conversation with as well.

Come on, you are actually using standard global warming denialist talking points. Silly ones at that. What happened to your "agreement" with global warming evidence? Thought so.

The National Academy of Science never backed the idea of global cooling, nor did NASA nor NOAA nor the UN. No treaties were built around it, etc, etc. It was largely promoted by a popular book and some speculation, not peer reviewed science and large scientific institutions.

In a NYT "cooling" article from 75, that I just read, scientists specifically mention the prospect of global warming from CO2 as also being a possibility. The NAS in a report quoted by the article says, "any assessment of climate trends is hampered by a lack of knowledge: "Not only are basic scientific questions largely unanswered but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the right questions". Hardly a ringing endorsement of cooling. Today the NAS says something very different about the evidence of global warming. They think it's happening.

Now, there may well be reasons to doubt global warming but that silly spam is not it. By all means, learn about the subject and make a case but that's just cut and paste misrepresentation.